Syracuse, NY - Syracuse police will be reviewing their search warrant policies in the wake of a Court of Appeals decision Thursday criticizing how the department executes “all-persons-present” warrants, a deputy chief said Friday.

“It sounds like it will have an impact on how we do things,” Deputy Police Chief David Barrette said of the ruling by the state’s highest court.

Barrette said he expected department officials would be reviewing the Court of Appeals’ decision and meeting with the District Attorney’s office to see what needs to be done.

“We’ll be taking our guidance from the District Attorney’s Office,” he said.

At issue for police agencies across the state is how they use warrants to search everyone found in a premises when a search warrant is executed.

The Court of Appeals concluded Thursday that Syracuse police have gotten lax in making sure they have sufficient probable cause to search everyone when they execute “all-persons-present” warrants.

The Albany court ordered Robert Mothersell’s fifth-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance conviction overturned and ordered the case dismissed. The court found police did not have probable cause to arrest him and subject him to a strip search when they found him along with several other people in an Isabella Street apartment during the execution of a search warrant looking for drugs in 2006.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote in the decision that the court has apparently never upheld the validity of an all-persons-present warrant. But the court stopped short of ruling such warrants unconstitutional.

The court said police are obligated to provide sufficient probable cause to justify the arrest and search of any person found at a location where such a warrant is executed.

Barrette Friday said it may be difficult for police to do that. The problem, he noted, is that police often do not know who is going to be present when the premises is raided.

Officers will continue to pat down all people present for officer safety, Barrette said. If that pat- down produces evidence of a weapon or other contraband, police will make arrests and conduct further searches accordingly, he said.

But he also indicated it’s possible people with drugs hidden in their possession may have to be let go based on the Court of Appeals ruling.

Barrette said authorities did not know Mothersell was going to be present when the Isabella Street apartment was raided. Felony weight cocaine was found in his possession when he was forced to strip.

The Court of Appeals specifically noted an all-persons-present warrant could not be justified solely on the inability of the police to identify the people to be searched.

“The requirement of probable cause both for the proposed search of the premises and for the search of each person present at the time of the warrant’s execution is unwavering,” Lippman wrote.

Barrette said the warrants executed by his department have been authorized by City Court judges. Judge Stephen Dougherty, who authorized the warrant in the Mothersell case, declined comment.

Supervising City Judge Jeffrey Merrill said Friday each judge makes his or her own decision on the validity of a warrant application. He said all of the city judges either know or will be advised of the Court of Appeals ruling.

“We have a sworn duty to follow the law,” he noted.

David Gideon, primary law clerk to Fifth Judicial District Administrative Justice James Tormey, said Friday he also would be reviewing the Court of Appeals decision for purposes of adding it to the instructions provided town and village justices.

Gideon said he and a colleague from Lewis County have been teaching town and village judges about search and seizure issues. He said they’ll likely add the Mothersell decision to the lessons.